THIRD SECTION
CASE OF RAZMANOVA v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 42925/18)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
11 February 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Razmanova v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Peeter Roosma, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 21 January 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 21 August 2018.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
THE FACTS
3. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of the domestic decision in her favour.
THE LAWALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
5. The applicant complained exclusively under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of the domestic decision given in her favour. That Convention provision insofar as relevant reads as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
6. The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II).
7. In the leading case of Gerasimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29920/05 and 10 others, 1 July 2014, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
8. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of this complaint. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decision in the applicant’s favour.
9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
10. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
11. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Gerasimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29920/05 and 10 others, §§ 187-200, 1 July 2014), as well as taking into account the sum which has already been awarded by the Russian courts to the applicant as compensation for the delay in the enforcement of the judgment (see the appended table), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.
12. The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the judgment in the applicant’s favour which remains unenforced.
13. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Declares the application admissible;Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the non-enforcement of the domestic decision in the applicant’s favour;Holds that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic decision referred to in the appended table;Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 February 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtDarian Pavli
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(non-enforcement of domestic decisions)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Relevant domestic decision
Start date of non-enforcement period
End date of non‑enforcement period
Length of enforcement proceedings
Domestic order
(in euros)
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
42925/18
21/08/2018
Viktoriya Alekseyevna RAZMANOVA
1996
Syktyvkar Town Court
05/02/2016
14/04/2016
pending
More than 4 year(s) and 6 month(s) and
4 day(s)
Syktyvkar municipal authorities to provide the applicant, without following any specific order and under a social tenancy agreement, living premises in Syktykar of the total surface of no less than 27,5 sq. m;
On 03/10/2017 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic awarded the applicant 45,000 Russian roubles (RUB) (approximately 650 euros) in compensation caused by lengthy non-enforcement. The judgment became final and the sum was paid to the applicant.
5,900
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy